Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387642 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-12 07:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-29 11:08 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 845 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-12 07:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-12 10:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-12 19:06 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-12 21:20 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 12:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-12 23:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 05:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 07:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 20:26 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 11:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 22:32 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 17:05 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 22:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 22:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 04:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 05:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 06:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 16:30 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 08:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 18:54 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 19:03 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-14 20:49 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:32 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 12:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 13:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-15 10:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-15 19:10 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 15:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-12 15:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 08:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 05:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-13 11:25 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-13 11:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-15 13:08 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:06 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-13 08:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 07:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:07 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 14:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 11:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 13:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 15:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 17:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 07:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 19:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-17 23:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-14 08:42 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 07:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 13:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 17:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-15 14:05 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-15 06:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 14:23 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-16 00:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-16 10:22 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-14 08:30 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-15 09:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-16 08:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-16 00:06 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 06:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-17 02:40 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 14:48 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:13 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:27 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-23 02:15 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 07:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:21 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 04:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-18 05:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-18 05:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 07:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:03 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-18 09:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 15:07 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 06:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:46 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 10:00 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 13:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-18 23:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 15:33 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 05:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-22 14:05 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 07:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 00:04 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 05:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 20:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 19:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 05:32 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 18:50 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 15:49 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-22 19:46 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 09:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:31 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 11:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 06:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 15:20 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 09:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 06:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-19 14:47 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:46 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 08:16 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-17 02:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-17 14:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 04:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:14 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-18 08:30 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 17:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-19 20:50 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:41 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-21 11:24 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-21 02:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 19:36 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 06:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-21 18:10 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 13:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 16:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:37 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-23 09:54 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 15:58 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:16 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 02:16 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:05 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:01 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:10 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 03:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:44 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 01:55 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-28 19:58 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 05:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-25 19:14 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 12:00 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 20:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-25 18:59 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:09 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 17:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 11:27 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:14 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-26 10:38 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:15 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-27 11:13 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:55 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 02:06 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:03 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-28 19:39 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 03:05 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-24 20:16 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:39 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:51 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 11:34 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:42 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:11 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:23 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 11:31 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:35 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-27 09:17 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 08:56 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-21 15:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-21 23:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 00:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 06:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 08:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 06:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:37 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-22 13:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-23 05:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:44 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-23 12:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:48 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 00:10 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:50 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:06 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-24 20:46 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:09 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 08:54 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-23 10:36 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 01:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-24 16:12 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 04:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 08:25 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 08:49 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 19:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-26 08:01 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-24 20:45 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-25 09:04 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-25 02:03 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-11 06:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 06:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:07 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:45 +1000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:54 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 19:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 10:44 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 23:02 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 10:51 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 17:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-19 23:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-20 09:41 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-20 06:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-21 05:05 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-22 06:09 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 06:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 08:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 08:41 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:47 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 08:52 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-28 07:01 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:49 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-02 09:13 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-25 08:45 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-21 05:18 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-31 09:22 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 10:10 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 05:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 08:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:02 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 09:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-29 18:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 17:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 17:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 21:53 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 08:11 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 06:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 06:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:32 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:44 -0700
Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:56 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:22 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 08:41 -0700
crackpot Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 10:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:45 -0700
Stephane Baune denies himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:57 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") continues to troll a thread that he doesn't understand "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:39 -0700
Stepane Baune, the village cretin "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 14:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:30 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") continues to insert foot in the mouth. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 08:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 08:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 09:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 10:41 -0700
Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 10:46 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 11:01 -0700
Re: Asshole Stephane Baune hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 11:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 15:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 17:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 21:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 08:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 16:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 12:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 21:59 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 20:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 09:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:10 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 22:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 20:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:23 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 12:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:14 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 14:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 14:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 14:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 15:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 15:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:22 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:32 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:05 -0700
Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") digs himself deeper "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:23 -0700
Poser Stephane Baune postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 19:38 -0700
Re: Idiot dono backpedals rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:54 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 20:39 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:36 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune postures Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 12:24 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 19:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 21:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 22:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 00:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 20:42 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 20:59 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 21:09 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:47 -0700
Re: Idiot dono shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:20 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune lies and shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:27 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune lies and shows that he is just as confused as idiot ken rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 08:13 -0500
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune embarrasses himself by demonstrating that he does not know basic relativity (he never learned it, to begin with) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 13:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 00:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 05:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:23 -0700
Stephane Baune digs himself deeper in his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 07:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 20:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 18:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 06:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:44 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 20:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:34 -0700
Cretin Stephane baune chimes in with a fresh imbecility "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 21:45 -0700
Re:Idiot dono does not knoe the meaning of "simultaneous". rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 22:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 04:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:21 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:26 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 09:23 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:07 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 04:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:03 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 13:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-03 20:31 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 17:09 -0500
Re: Idiot dono gets owned rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 15:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 15:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 16:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:18 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #3 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:19 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #4 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:34 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 06:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 07:12 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 07:24 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:51 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:59 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 09:15 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 20:38 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:42 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned again by me, Tom et al. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:45 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned again by me, Tom et al. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 21:23 -0700
Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot jumps at the opportunity to suck Stephane Baune's dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:34 -0700
Re:Idiot dono admits defeat in his own words rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 08:17 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune continues to embarrass himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 08:23 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune puffs himself up, just like a hot air balloon "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 06:29 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 13:00 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 11:30 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-02 20:57 -0500
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 19:25 -0700
Re: Idiot dono messes up a simple math prob, AGAIN! rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 20:40 -0700
Re: Idiot Stephane Baune reaches new lows "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 23:03 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 20:01 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune pops in for a quick kick in the pants "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 20:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 11:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 21:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 12:37 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 22:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 10:50 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 08:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 16:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 17:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-01 18:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:54 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-02 23:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 00:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:34 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 07:38 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 07:42 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:12 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:19 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:38 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:18 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:36 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:41 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:20 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:44 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:48 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephane Baune puffs himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 11:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 20:45 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 19:57 -0700
Cretin Stephane baune pops up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:28 -0700
Re: Idiot dono admits he was wrong?? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 20:47 -0700
Gassbag Stephane Baune at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:52 -0700
Re: Gassbag Stephane Baune at work rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:23 -0700
Re: Gassbag Stephane Baune at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:36 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:43 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 06:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 06:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 09:40 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-04 17:16 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:22 -0700
Re:idiot dono gets owned be me # 31 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:44 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune does what he does best: eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:28 -0700
Re: idiot dono gets owned by me # 33 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:53 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune tries to contribute and falls flat on his face "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:04 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 20:40 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned by Tom #18 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:34 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune keeps eating shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:43 -0700
Re: idiot donmo gets owned by PCH # 23 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:37 -0700
Imbecile Stephane baune continues to eat shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:44 -0700
Re: idiot dono gets owned #14 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 06:44 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune dabbles into subjects he knows nothing about "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 06:59 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 09:31 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 07:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 15:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #2 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 06:48 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune chimes in on subjects he doesn't understand "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 06:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-03 10:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 08:37 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 08:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 09:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 09:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-03 10:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 10:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 13:26 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-03 20:34 -0500
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #5 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 18:45 -0700
Idiot Stephane Baune has no clue about what is being debated "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 19:15 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 19:45 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune contnues to insert foot in mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-03 20:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 07:25 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 05:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-04 06:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 08:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-04 21:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 08:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 09:44 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 10:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 10:49 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 10:55 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 11:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 04:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 05:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 06:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:39 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:17 -0700
Idiot Stephane baune adds another goof to his long list of idiocies posted "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:48 -0700
Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:56 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 08:21 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:34 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 08:42 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 09:00 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:50 -0700
Re: Idiot dono blames books for his stupidity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:23 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") back at "work" "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:41 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 11:04 -0500
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:42 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 21:27 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 21:57 -0700
Re: Cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot demnstrates his ignorance Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:38 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:52 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:35 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune finds a new opportunity to puff himself up "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:40 -0700
Re: idiot dono get owned by Tom # 58 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:38 -0700
idiot rotchm (aka pretender Stephane Baune) acts as the gassbag he is "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 12:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 21:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 22:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 04:24 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 06:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 13:11 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 19:56 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") is back for some fresh embarrassment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 20:25 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:16 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 16:01 -0700
Re: Ignorant Raving Crackpot ...IS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 19:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-07 15:00 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 16:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-08 14:16 +0200
Stubborn cretin Ignorant Raving Crackpot craps all over himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 15:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 20:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 02:49 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot sucking dick to crackpot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 06:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 23:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 06:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 07:00 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 07:12 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 07:38 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 07:43 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats some fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 08:06 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:27 -0700
Re: Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 08:34 -0700
Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:47 -0700
Re: Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 09:03 -0700
Re: Resident village idiot Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") butts in and eats even more fresh shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:30 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 04:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 09:58 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:16 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") persistes "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:25 -0700
Latest imbecility from cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:43 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 20:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-06 21:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:16 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-04 20:38 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 21:23 -0700
Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 06:14 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:10 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 07:22 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:00 -0700
Re: Pretender imbecile Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-05 11:13 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:14 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:20 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:34 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 09:46 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:52 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:06 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 12:39 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 12:57 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:49 -0700
Stephane Baune receives a fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:30 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:01 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:07 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:13 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:27 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:33 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 13:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:42 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:54 -0700
Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 12:00 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 13:35 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:40 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:18 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:19 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:29 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:53 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 16:18 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:41 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 17:18 -0700
Re: Idiot dono cant even subtract correctly rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 19:51 -0700
Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 20:29 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 21:32 -0700
Re: Stephane baune, the village idiot, postures rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:38 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 18:41 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:41 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 22:46 -0700
Re: Idiot dono foams of the mouth now... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:39 -0700
Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") creting gets a fresh asshole every time he opens his mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin keeps getting fresh assholes (and he likes it) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:52 -0700
Stephane Baune cretinoid gets a yet another fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:54 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned #70 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:17 -0700
Sttephane baune rushes to suck ass to Tom's imbecilities "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:21 -0700
Re: Sttephane baune rushes... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:11 -0700
Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:17 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 09:34 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 09:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 11:17 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 13:47 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:53 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 16:02 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 20:58 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog rushes to suck his dick "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 20:08 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:45 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 16:01 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 17:07 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 21:17 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 02:56 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 19:11 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 20:09 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 20:55 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 22:32 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 05:06 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 06:43 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 08:35 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:25 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 09:28 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:31 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune rushes...to eat some more shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 14:04 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:49 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:45 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:49 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:35 -0500
Re: Stephane Baune enjoys fresh asshole "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 23:06 -0700
Re: Idiot dono ...well, is an idiot... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:57 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin, a glutton for punishment "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Idiot dono gets owned by Tom #48 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:13 -0700
Stephane Baune pretender comes back for fresh asshole ripping "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:19 -0700
Re: idiot dono is losing it... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:45 -0700
Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:54 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:57 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:09 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:13 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 11:40 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune cretin, desperate for a win "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 11:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:14 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:32 -0700
CRETIN Stephane Baune (aka "rotch") eats some more shit. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:40 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:37 -0700
Ifnorant raving Crackpot even stupider than cretin Stephane Baune (aka "rotchm") "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 10:44 -0700
Re:IDIOT DONO EVEN DUMBER THAT IDIOT KEN. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 18:05 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 16:21 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:45 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 23:56 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 22:54 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 05:56 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:02 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 07:09 -0700
Re:Idiot dono gets owned #71 rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:02 -0700
Stephane Baune rushes to suck ass to his fellow crackpot, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 08:08 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 22:35 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 22:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 03:17 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 06:41 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 07:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 08:31 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 06:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 20:47 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:29 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 21:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 21:57 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 07:36 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 15:35 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 16:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 09:06 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 14:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 13:15 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:16 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 05:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:17 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:04 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-03 20:42 +0200
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 17:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 15:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:22 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 05:51 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 13:57 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 07:10 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 08:48 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:00 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:58 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:12 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:02 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 17:33 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:20 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-01 06:50 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 18:01 +0000
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:18 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:09 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:34 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:53 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 14:18 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 17:28 -0700
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:19 -0500
Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:08 -0500
Page 14 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 43 Next page →
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <052eb223-3274-4feb-bf15-cfedc82f421d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388050 |
El martes, 19 de julio de 2016, 16:53:39 (UTC-4), Thomas Heger escribió: > Am 12.07.2016 16:20, schrieb kenseto: > > RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons: > > 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames. > > > > 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes derived from it. > > > > 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other physical properties of the events. IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. > > > > > Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). > > This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. > > So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing > is not happening now, but is also remote in time. > > A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. > > And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year > to make this event visible. > > This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at > that time for a remote observer. > > So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years apart. > > But it's possible to define, what 'simultaneity' should be, by > introducing a hypothetical signal of infinite velocity. > > This - say- 'omega beam' shall transmit information without any delay > and is used to define simultaneity. > > Such beams do not exist. But for a definition existence is not a > requirement. > > > TH See my following post to sci.physics.research on 2013 Nov 23: "A time definition simpler and equivalent to the 1905" https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.research/R96eyz2pugA Your 'omega beam' is included as a particular instance of what I denote as a Moving Agent (MA). See how to define the SAME 1905 Einstein's "time", the uniform speed for the MA can have ANY value (including greater than the vacuum light speed c), but not necessarily infinite as you seem thinking. Unfortunately, the debate was cut off by the moderator, but fortunately after the introduction of some profound ideas by some different users. I am very interested to continue it with you (or any other), here or with any other media. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 10:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dv8rv0Fc0ssU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388053 |
Am 20.07.2016 00:07, schrieb Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato: > El martes, 19 de julio de 2016, 16:53:39 (UTC-4), Thomas Heger escribió: >> Am 12.07.2016 16:20, schrieb kenseto: >>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons: >>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames. >>> >>> 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes derived from it. >>> >>> 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other physical properties of the events. IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. >>> >> >> >> Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). >> >> This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. >> >> So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing >> is not happening now, but is also remote in time. >> >> A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. >> >> And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year >> to make this event visible. >> >> This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at >> that time for a remote observer. >> >> So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years apart. >> >> But it's possible to define, what 'simultaneity' should be, by >> introducing a hypothetical signal of infinite velocity. >> >> This - say- 'omega beam' shall transmit information without any delay >> and is used to define simultaneity. >> >> Such beams do not exist. But for a definition existence is not a >> requirement. >> >> >> TH > > See my following post to sci.physics.research on 2013 Nov 23: > > "A time definition simpler and equivalent to the 1905" > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.research/R96eyz2pugA > > Your 'omega beam' is included as a particular instance of what I denote as a > Moving Agent (MA). See how to define the SAME 1905 Einstein's "time", the > uniform speed for the MA can have ANY value (including greater than the vacuum > light speed c), but not necessarily infinite as you seem thinking. Yes, indeed, very interesting. Actually I have not recognised, that any velocity would serve the same purpose as c. I use a different method: I regard velocity as an angle in spacetime, which can go from zero to infinity. Zero velocity is the axis of time itself, hence would denote a stable propagation along the timeline. This is the main feature of the term 'mass'. 45° is what we call 'c' or the speed of light in vacuum. This 'vacuum' is actually a certain subset of such a velocity spectrum, hence 'relative'. Infinite velocity is 90° and that is: time * i (i represents the angle 90°) So 'present' means connected without delay (or 'imaginary time'). Such infinite velocity would look like a static field, since 'static' means 'does not change in time'. This is then: mass * i (or: 'potential'). Now I combine both (mass and charge) to make 'relativistic atoms'. > Unfortunately, the debate was cut off by the moderator, but fortunately after > the introduction of some profound ideas by some different users. I am very > interested to continue it with you (or any other), here or with any other media. > Well, most of my own threads have been shut down, too, when I had written in moderated forums like BAUT. So I stick to the UseNet. It's kind of annoying, but at least nobody can shut down anything. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d3b7b34-41fd-44f9-8c71-f97339383e04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388071 |
El miércoles, 20 de julio de 2016, 4:44:20 (UTC-4), Thomas Heger escribió: > Am 20.07.2016 00:07, schrieb Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato: > > El martes, 19 de julio de 2016, 16:53:39 (UTC-4), Thomas Heger escribió: > >> Am 12.07.2016 16:20, schrieb kenseto: > >>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons: > >>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames. > >>> > >>> 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes derived from it. > >>> > >>> 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other physical properties of the events. IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate. > >>> > >> > >> > >> Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). > >> > >> This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. > >> > >> So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing > >> is not happening now, but is also remote in time. > >> > >> A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. > >> > >> And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year > >> to make this event visible. > >> > >> This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at > >> that time for a remote observer. > >> > >> So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years apart. > >> > >> But it's possible to define, what 'simultaneity' should be, by > >> introducing a hypothetical signal of infinite velocity. > >> > >> This - say- 'omega beam' shall transmit information without any delay > >> and is used to define simultaneity. > >> > >> Such beams do not exist. But for a definition existence is not a > >> requirement. > >> > >> > >> TH > > > > See my following post to sci.physics.research on 2013 Nov 23: > > > > "A time definition simpler and equivalent to the 1905" > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.research/R96eyz2pugA > > > > Your 'omega beam' is included as a particular instance of what I denote as a > > Moving Agent (MA). See how to define the SAME 1905 Einstein's "time", the > > uniform speed for the MA can have ANY value (including greater than the vacuum > > light speed c), but not necessarily infinite as you seem thinking. > > Yes, indeed, very interesting. Actually I have not recognised, that any > velocity would serve the same purpose as c. > > > I use a different method: > > I regard velocity as an angle in spacetime, which can go from zero to > infinity. > > Zero velocity is the axis of time itself, hence would denote a stable > propagation along the timeline. This is the main feature of the term 'mass'. > > 45° is what we call 'c' or the speed of light in vacuum. > > This 'vacuum' is actually a certain subset of such a velocity spectrum, > hence 'relative'. > > Infinite velocity is 90° and that is: time * i > > (i represents the angle 90°) > > So 'present' means connected without delay (or 'imaginary time'). > > Such infinite velocity would look like a static field, since 'static' > means 'does not change in time'. This is then: mass * i (or: 'potential'). > > Now I combine both (mass and charge) to make 'relativistic atoms'. > Well, you seem creating a new version of Relativity starting with the *spacetime* concept introduced by H. Minkowski (A. Einstein's Mathematics professor) about 1907. That intimate relationship between space and time integrated in a 4-dimension spacetime continuum is NOT present in the original 1905 Einstein's Relativity, denoted by me *1905R* to distinguish it from the totally different Special Relativity (SR) of our days, a denotation coined by 1916 Einstein to distinguish it from his recent developed General Relativity (GR), after years trying (without success) to address Gravity with the SR already drastically modified by Minkowski. I am a 1905R follower, with already great success addressing Gravity with it, until now in a very much simpler way than GR. In his Sep 27 paper, 1905 Einstein concludes "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content", and from that conclusion I had derived from 1905R that a variable body rest mass m_0 measures its Potential Energy (PE), being also equal to its inertial mass m_I. The conserved Total Energy (TE) is measured by the gravitational mass m_G, being TE=KE+PE, where KE is the Kinetic Energy and the additive arbitrary constant C of PE disappears. The ratio m_G/m_I results equal to the 1905R relativistic factor gamma(v), being equal to 1 ONLY when the body velocity v=0 (the future GR Principle of Equivalence contradicts this). If you want to know more about 1905R, start addressing the following link: Valls Hidalgo-Gato, Rafael A. "Towards an extension of 1905 relativistic dynamics with a variable rest mass measuring potential energy" http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4157.pdf RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) ...................
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 23:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dva775Fmhm3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388087 |
Am 20.07.2016 16:50, schrieb Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato: >>> >>> See my following post to sci.physics.research on 2013 Nov 23: >>> >>> "A time definition simpler and equivalent to the 1905" >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.research/R96eyz2pugA >>> >>> Your 'omega beam' is included as a particular instance of what I denote as a >>> Moving Agent (MA). See how to define the SAME 1905 Einstein's "time", the >>> uniform speed for the MA can have ANY value (including greater than the vacuum >>> light speed c), but not necessarily infinite as you seem thinking. >> >> Yes, indeed, very interesting. Actually I have not recognised, that any >> velocity would serve the same purpose as c. >> >> >> I use a different method: >> >> I regard velocity as an angle in spacetime, which can go from zero to >> infinity. >> >> Zero velocity is the axis of time itself, hence would denote a stable >> propagation along the timeline. This is the main feature of the term 'mass'. >> >> 45° is what we call 'c' or the speed of light in vacuum. >> >> This 'vacuum' is actually a certain subset of such a velocity spectrum, >> hence 'relative'. >> >> Infinite velocity is 90° and that is: time * i >> >> (i represents the angle 90°) >> >> So 'present' means connected without delay (or 'imaginary time'). >> >> Such infinite velocity would look like a static field, since 'static' >> means 'does not change in time'. This is then: mass * i (or: 'potential'). >> >> Now I combine both (mass and charge) to make 'relativistic atoms'. >> > > Well, you seem creating a new version of Relativity starting with the > *spacetime* concept introduced by H. Minkowski (A. Einstein's Mathematics > professor) about 1907. That intimate relationship between space and time > integrated in a 4-dimension spacetime continuum is NOT present in the original > 1905 Einstein's Relativity, denoted by me *1905R* to distinguish it from the > totally different Special Relativity (SR) of our days, a denotation coined by > 1916 Einstein to distinguish it from his recent developed General Relativity > (GR), after years trying (without success) to address Gravity with the SR > already drastically modified by Minkowski. Actually true, since I refer to Herman Minkowski, mainly. But what I actually try to do is to connect Minkowski's spacetime to the particle concept of QM. I call this concept 'structured spacetime', where particles are 'timelike stable structures of/within spacetime'. So it's actually a concept about matter, rather than a new version or relativity and about how to bring relativity and QM into a logical context. I have written kind of book about the idea. You find it here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > I am a 1905R follower, with already great success addressing Gravity with it, > until now in a very much simpler way than GR. In his Sep 27 paper, 1905 > Einstein concludes "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content", and > from that conclusion I had derived from 1905R that a variable body rest mass > m_0 measures its Potential Energy (PE), being also equal to its inertial mass > m_I. The conserved Total Energy (TE) is measured by the gravitational mass > m_G, being TE=KE+PE, where KE is the Kinetic Energy and the additive arbitrary > constant C of PE disappears. The ratio m_G/m_I results equal to the 1905R > relativistic factor gamma(v), being equal to 1 ONLY when the body velocity v=0 > (the future GR Principle of Equivalence contradicts this). Somehow I do not cover the subject of gravity, since I thought, that GR would sufficiently deal with this problem. About SRT I think it is wrong and about Einstein's paper of 1905 I cannot say very much. > If you want to know more about 1905R, start addressing the following link: > > Valls Hidalgo-Gato, Rafael A. "Towards an extension of 1905 relativistic > dynamics with a variable rest mass measuring potential energy" > > http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4157.pdf > I will certainly have a look at your paper. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvm29fFgt7rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388099 |
Am 20.07.2016 23:02, schrieb Thomas Heger: > >> If you want to know more about 1905R, start addressing the following >> link: >> >> Valls Hidalgo-Gato, Rafael A. "Towards an extension of 1905 relativistic >> dynamics with a variable rest mass measuring potential energy" >> >> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4157.pdf >> > I will certainly have a look at your paper. > I had a brief look at your paper and mainly agree with your statements. You criticize the usual interpretations of the terms E and m in the formula E= m c². Actually the term E denotes the energy of the emitted rays, while m is meant of the (rest-)mass of the probe, from which this ray originates. Since m decreases, we had to say: E_ray = - delta(m_probe) * c² (what is obviously not done that often). So, what is actually mass? The term 'mass' denotes a certain aspect of material objects, we call 'inertia'. Energy is an aspect of systems with rapid change. And that is not the behaviour of mass. To set mass equal to energy times a constant is incorrect, because these terms denote just opposite behaviours (stability vs. change). They behave also in opposite directions (more energy means less mass). That's why I have trouble with this equation. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 17:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmm9a9$u4a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388050 |
On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). > > This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. > > So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing > is not happening now, but is also remote in time. > > A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. > > And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year > to make this event visible. > > This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at > that time for a remote observer. > > So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years apart. Not as hard as you might think. For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, and it is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you and S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events that generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even though the signals were not received at the same time. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b207d59a-fcba-4b5c-9143-3834a2b40026@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388054 |
W dniu środa, 20 lipca 2016 00:24:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). > > > > This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. > > > > So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing > > is not happening now, but is also remote in time. > > > > A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. > > > > And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year > > to make this event visible. > > > > This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at > > that time for a remote observer. > > > > So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years apart. > > Not as hard as you might think. > For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at > different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the > same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 > arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, and it > is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an > independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you and > S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times > from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events that > generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of > reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even > though the signals were not received at the same time. And now, poor idiot, sit down into a rocket and go. How are you going to determine they're not simultaneous anymore (in your frame, of course)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 09:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dv8o96Fb4c5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388054 |
Am 20.07.2016 00:24, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). >> >> This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. >> >> So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing >> is not happening now, but is also remote in time. >> >> A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. >> >> And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year >> to make this event visible. >> >> This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at >> that time for a remote observer. >> >> So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years apart. > > Not as hard as you might think. > For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at > different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the > same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 > arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, and it > is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an > independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you and > S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times > from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events that > generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of > reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even > though the signals were not received at the same time. I do agree. But this is not, what RoS (Relativity of Simultaneity ) means. SRT uses the concept, that clocks have to be synchronised, to *measure' simultaneity. So, in a way, it is relative, what is called to happen at the same time (simultaneity). This is a really twisted concept, since it contains the same entity (speed of light) twice: once in space and once in the definition of time. To untangle this, we had to make time local first. So clocks are not synchronised. We have local measure of time and that is, what local clocks say. Other clocks we don't know and cannot know, since we cannot travel to places that far away. So we use local time and this is measured by local clocks. Based on these local clocks we define simultaneity as what would be connected by infinite speed. In relativity terms this would be the 'hyperplane of the present'. In an abstract way time behaves like an axis, which stands orthogonal on this plane and the observer is actually the point, where both meet. Then 'space' is actually the past light-cone, hence 'relative', too. This hyperplane of the present is actually 'relative', since it belongs to a certain observer (actually a class of observers). So we can have such planes in an angle, if the observer would move. This would also influence space and time, since time was the orthogonal axis and space the past light-cone around that axis. If now this tilted plane is oriented horizontal again, the tiled axis of time gets vertical and the previous axis gets into an angle. Now this would make remote events look like happening at different times. So apparent chronological order of remote events is different, if observers move fast. But this is only kind of optical illusion, since light takes time to travel. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 07:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmns90$r4f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388068 |
On 7/20/2016 2:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.07.2016 00:24, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). >>> >>> This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. >>> >>> So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing >>> is not happening now, but is also remote in time. >>> >>> A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. >>> >>> And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year >>> to make this event visible. >>> >>> This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at >>> that time for a remote observer. >>> >>> So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years >>> apart. >> >> Not as hard as you might think. >> For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at >> different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the >> same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 >> arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, and it >> is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an >> independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you and >> S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times >> from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events that >> generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of >> reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even >> though the signals were not received at the same time. > > I do agree. > > But this is not, what RoS (Relativity of Simultaneity ) means. Oh, but it is. > > SRT uses the concept, that clocks have to be synchronised, to *measure' > simultaneity. > > So, in a way, it is relative, what is called to happen at the same time > (simultaneity). I have no idea what you mean by "in a way, it is relative". > > This is a really twisted concept, since it contains the same entity > (speed of light) twice: once in space and once in the definition of time. What? > > > To untangle this, we had to make time local first. So clocks are not > synchronised. > > We have local measure of time and that is, what local clocks say. > > Other clocks we don't know and cannot know, since we cannot travel to > places that far away. > > So we use local time and this is measured by local clocks. > > Based on these local clocks we define simultaneity as what would be > connected by infinite speed. Not necessary. See above. You can synchronize distant clocks by the backtracking procedure I just described. > > In relativity terms this would be the 'hyperplane of the present'. > > In an abstract way time behaves like an axis, which stands orthogonal on > this plane and the observer is actually the point, where both meet. > > Then 'space' is actually the past light-cone, hence 'relative', too. > > This hyperplane of the present is actually 'relative', since it belongs > to a certain observer (actually a class of observers). > > So we can have such planes in an angle, if the observer would move. > > This would also influence space and time, since time was the orthogonal > axis and space the past light-cone around that axis. > > If now this tilted plane is oriented horizontal again, the tiled axis of > time gets vertical and the previous axis gets into an angle. > > Now this would make remote events look like happening at different times. > > So apparent chronological order of remote events is different, if > observers move fast. > > But this is only kind of optical illusion, since light takes time to > travel. > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 06:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <076c2ca9-02d9-4d4d-b2f3-b42cd8615cc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388078 |
W dniu środa, 20 lipca 2016 14:53:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Not necessary. See above. You can synchronize distant clocks by the > backtracking procedure I just described. Go back to your toys and leave procedures to competent people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 05:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvasflFr2gpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388078 |
Am 20.07.2016 14:53, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 7/20/2016 2:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 20.07.2016 00:24, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). >>>> >>>> This would make remote events visible later then when they had >>>> happened. >>>> >>>> So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing >>>> is not happening now, but is also remote in time. >>>> >>>> A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. >>>> >>>> And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion >>>> year >>>> to make this event visible. >>>> >>>> This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not >>>> visible at >>>> that time for a remote observer. >>>> >>>> So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years >>>> apart. >>> >>> Not as hard as you might think. >>> For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at >>> different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the >>> same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 >>> arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, and it >>> is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an >>> independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you and >>> S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times >>> from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events that >>> generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of >>> reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even >>> though the signals were not received at the same time. >> >> I do agree. >> >> But this is not, what RoS (Relativity of Simultaneity ) means. > > Oh, but it is. > >> >> SRT uses the concept, that clocks have to be synchronised, to *measure' >> simultaneity. >> >> So, in a way, it is relative, what is called to happen at the same time >> (simultaneity). > > I have no idea what you mean by "in a way, it is relative". 'RoS' means 'relativity of simultaneity'. This is "..in a way, it is relative". But apparent simultaneity is not real. It is an apparent phenomenon, which occurs through the finite speed of light. >> >> This is a really twisted concept, since it contains the same entity >> (speed of light) twice: once in space and once in the definition of time. > > What? If you don't want to discuss the reason for optical illusions, you need to use definitions of simultaneity, that are not based on light (or radio waves or similar). But that is not the concept of SRT. Instead the requirement for synchronisation of clocks is introduced for no obvious reason. There is no need for synchronisation, since we have no buddies in spaceships near Alpha Centaury. >> >> >> To untangle this, we had to make time local first. So clocks are not >> synchronised. >> >> We have local measure of time and that is, what local clocks say. >> >> Other clocks we don't know and cannot know, since we cannot travel to >> places that far away. >> >> So we use local time and this is measured by local clocks. >> >> Based on these local clocks we define simultaneity as what would be >> connected by infinite speed. > > Not necessary. See above. You can synchronize distant clocks by the > backtracking procedure I just described. No, we don't synchronise distant clocks at all. In case of future space-travel to destinations outside our solar system, this could eventually change. But for the near future we don't synchronise remote clocks. It would be useless anyhow, since what is expected to change is the 'tick-rate' (or the 'speed of time') and that is hard to compensate by synchronisation. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 06:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvdkjqFgmuiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388108 |
Am 21.07.2016 05:05, schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> To untangle this, we had to make time local first. So clocks are not >>> synchronised. >>> >>> We have local measure of time and that is, what local clocks say. >>> >>> Other clocks we don't know and cannot know, since we cannot travel to >>> places that far away. >>> >>> So we use local time and this is measured by local clocks. >>> >>> Based on these local clocks we define simultaneity as what would be >>> connected by infinite speed. >> >> Not necessary. See above. You can synchronize distant clocks by the >> backtracking procedure I just described. > > No, we don't synchronise distant clocks at all. > > In case of future space-travel to destinations outside our solar system, > this could eventually change. > > But for the near future we don't synchronise remote clocks. > > It would be useless anyhow, since what is expected to change is the > 'tick-rate' (or the 'speed of time') and that is hard to compensate by > synchronisation. > If time is a local measurement, than changes of the 'tick rate' cannot be measured directly by a co-moving observer, because all co-moving clocks are effected. Time is regarded as fundamental and as flowing at a constant rate, so changes in the speed of time will not be measured. Actually most measurements are based somehow on time-intervals, hence changes of the 'tick-rate' would make all sorts of things happen, but not a change of the speed of time. So a different 'tick-rate' (of local clocks) would be accompanied with compensating effects, which lead to the experience of a constant environment. (Faster clocks would make things smaller and slower clocks make things larger.) To understand the effect, we use the 'hyperplane of the present' and as example a real plane, which you be tilted like boat. The vertical of that 'boat' is the mast, which stands for the axis of time. Now this 'boat' floats through nothing and the person inside that boat takes the mast as vertical, irrespective of the orientation of the boat. If he sees another boat, floating 'sideways' towards him, he would call that timeline distorted, because that mast is pointing in the 'wrong' direction (for him). If the mast points towards him, that timeline is blueshifted and the content of that 'boat' looks like fast and tiny things. If the mast points into the opposite direction, time looks redshifted and things get very large. Since the person in the other boat does not have such an impression about himself, both persons ascribes mutual effects with opposite signs to the other 'boat'. Now it is important, that the hyperplane of the present is invisible for the local comoving observer. We can only see the part, that is very close. The rest cannot be seen. But other hyperplanes of other observers presence CAN be seen. So two observers could start a communication and tell each other about what they cannot see themselves, but the other can. This would be easy, as long as they share the same axis of time. But if the planes tilt, their hyperplanes of the present would not be parallel any more, hence they would not agree about simultaneity. Also the other observers hyperplane of the present would be slightly more spatial and slightly more belonging to his own realm of invisibility. If the angle is 45° the picture gets completely distorted what is space for one observer is time for the other. Also the content of one world gets completely invisible and light redshifted to zero. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f223be7d-1baa-4cd9-9957-2f8b6c70f083@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388054 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 6:24:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). > > > > This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. > > > > So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing > > is not happening now, but is also remote in time. > > > > A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. > > > > And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year > > to make this event visible. > > > > This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at > > that time for a remote observer. > > > > So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years apart. > > Not as hard as you might think. > For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at > different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the > same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 > arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, and it > is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an > independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you and > S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times > from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events that > generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of > reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even > though the signals were not received at the same time. No the signal arrive at the earth simultaneous.....but this does not mean they were generated simultaneously. Why? because the earth observer does not know if he is at the mid-point between the two events.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmnv5u$10js$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388082 |
On 7/20/2016 8:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 6:24:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). >>> >>> This would make remote events visible later then when they had happened. >>> >>> So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing >>> is not happening now, but is also remote in time. >>> >>> A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. >>> >>> And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion year >>> to make this event visible. >>> >>> This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not visible at >>> that time for a remote observer. >>> >>> So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years apart. >> >> Not as hard as you might think. >> For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at >> different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the >> same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 >> arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, and it >> is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an >> independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you and >> S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times >> from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events that >> generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of >> reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even >> though the signals were not received at the same time. > > No the signal arrive at the earth simultaneous. Nope, that's not what I set up here. Don't change my example. > ....but this does not mean they were generated simultaneously. Why? because > the earth observer does not know if he is at the mid-point between the two events. Again, you are changing my example. In my example you can determine the distances from the sources by independent means, such as parallax. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 08:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvlql4Ff3l3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388084 |
Am 20.07.2016 15:43, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 7/20/2016 8:18 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 6:24:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). >>>> >>>> This would make remote events visible later then when they had >>>> happened. >>>> >>>> So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing >>>> is not happening now, but is also remote in time. >>>> >>>> A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a year. >>>> >>>> And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion >>>> year >>>> to make this event visible. >>>> >>>> This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not >>>> visible at >>>> that time for a remote observer. >>>> >>>> So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years >>>> apart. >>> >>> Not as hard as you might think. >>> For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at >>> different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the >>> same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 >>> arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, and it >>> is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an >>> independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you and >>> S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times >>> from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events that >>> generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of >>> reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even >>> though the signals were not received at the same time. >> >> No the signal arrive at the earth simultaneous. > > Nope, that's not what I set up here. Don't change my example. > >> ....but this does not mean they were generated simultaneously. Why? >> because >> the earth observer does not know if he is at the mid-point between the >> two events. > Assume a certain time as starting point. This is the 1st of January 2000, 0:00 GMT. At this time there are signals transmitted from various distances to the Earth. One source A) is ten light-years away. The signal would arrive on Earth at 1st of January 2010, 0:00 GM. One source B) is eleven light-years away. The signal would arrive on Earth at 1st of January 2011, 0:00 GM. One source C) is twelve light-years away. The signal would arrive on Earth at 1st of January 2012, 0:00 GM. Now we want to calculate, when a signal started at such places we receive on Earth at 1st of January 2017, 0:00 GM. This is easy: Since source A) is ten light-years away. The signal started on A) at 1st of January 2007, 0:00 GM. Since source B) is eleven light-years away. The signal started on B) at 1st of January 2006, 0:00 GM. Since source C) is twelve light-years away. The signal started on C) at 1st of January 2005, 0:00 GM. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn56m1$lat$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388335 |
On 7/25/2016 1:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.07.2016 15:43, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 7/20/2016 8:18 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 6:24:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/19/2016 3:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Light has limited velocity (thou quite fast). >>>>> >>>>> This would make remote events visible later then when they had >>>>> happened. >>>>> >>>>> So a certain observer had to take into account, that what he is seeing >>>>> is not happening now, but is also remote in time. >>>>> >>>>> A distance of one light-year would make the event invisible for a >>>>> year. >>>>> >>>>> And a distance of one billion light-years would require one billion >>>>> year >>>>> to make this event visible. >>>>> >>>>> This is also a mutual relation and the observer itself is not >>>>> visible at >>>>> that time for a remote observer. >>>>> >>>>> So simultaneity is actually hard to measure, if you're light-years >>>>> apart. >>>> >>>> Not as hard as you might think. >>>> For example, suppose you receive signals from two sources S1 and S2 at >>>> different orientations in the sky, but you don't receive them at the >>>> same time. Instead, they arrive a year apart, with the signal from S1 >>>> arriving first. OK, so those two signals are in your stored data, >>>> and it >>>> is noted in the data that they are a year apart. Now, through an >>>> independent means, you know that S1 is 5.5 light-years away from you >>>> and >>>> S2 is 6.5 light-years away from you. Thus, by backtracking those times >>>> from your recorded data, you know unambiguously that the two events >>>> that >>>> generated those signals were simultaneous in the Earth's frame of >>>> reference, even though they both happened a long time ago, and even >>>> though the signals were not received at the same time. >>> >>> No the signal arrive at the earth simultaneous. >> >> Nope, that's not what I set up here. Don't change my example. >> >>> ....but this does not mean they were generated simultaneously. Why? >>> because >>> the earth observer does not know if he is at the mid-point between the >>> two events. >> > > Assume a certain time as starting point. This is the 1st of January > 2000, 0:00 GMT. > At this time there are signals transmitted from various distances to the > Earth. > > One source A) is ten light-years away. The signal would arrive on Earth > at 1st of January 2010, 0:00 GM. > > One source B) is eleven light-years away. The signal would arrive on > Earth at 1st of January 2011, 0:00 GM. > > One source C) is twelve light-years away. The signal would arrive on > Earth at 1st of January 2012, 0:00 GM. > > > Now we want to calculate, when a signal started at such places we > receive on Earth at 1st of January 2017, 0:00 GM. > > This is easy: > > Since source A) is ten light-years away. The signal started on A) at 1st > of January 2007, 0:00 GM. > > Since source B) is eleven light-years away. The signal started on B) at > 1st of January 2006, 0:00 GM. > > Since source C) is twelve light-years away. The signal started on C) at > 1st of January 2005, 0:00 GM. > > > > TH That's not my example, either. Here is my example. On Earth, you receive a signal from source A) on 1st January 2017, 0:00 GM. Then later, you receive a signal from source B) on 1st January 2018, 0:00 GM. Notice that these two signals have NOT arrived at the earth at the same time. Since source A) is ten light-years away, you know that the signal started on A) on 1st January, 2007, 0:00 GM. Since source B) is eleven light-years away, you know that the signal started on B) on 1st January, 2007, 0:00 GM. Thus the two signals were sent simultaneously, in the rest frame of the Earth. This you know, even though the two signals were not received at the same time. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 22:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvnb9oFr9dgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388353 |
Am 25.07.2016 16:11, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> Assume a certain time as starting point. This is the 1st of January >> 2000, 0:00 GMT. >> At this time there are signals transmitted from various distances to the >> Earth. >> >> One source A) is ten light-years away. The signal would arrive on Earth >> at 1st of January 2010, 0:00 GM. >> >> One source B) is eleven light-years away. The signal would arrive on >> Earth at 1st of January 2011, 0:00 GM. >> >> One source C) is twelve light-years away. The signal would arrive on >> Earth at 1st of January 2012, 0:00 GM. >> >> >> Now we want to calculate, when a signal started at such places we >> receive on Earth at 1st of January 2017, 0:00 GM. >> >> This is easy: >> >> Since source A) is ten light-years away. The signal started on A) at 1st >> of January 2007, 0:00 GM. >> >> Since source B) is eleven light-years away. The signal started on B) at >> 1st of January 2006, 0:00 GM. >> >> Since source C) is twelve light-years away. The signal started on C) at >> 1st of January 2005, 0:00 GM. >> >> >> >> TH > > > That's not my example, either. Here is my example. > > On Earth, you receive a signal from source A) on 1st January 2017, 0:00 > GM. Then later, you receive a signal from source B) on 1st January 2018, > 0:00 GM. Notice that these two signals have NOT arrived at the earth at > the same time. > > Since source A) is ten light-years away, you know that the signal > started on A) on 1st January, 2007, 0:00 GM. > Since source B) is eleven light-years away, you know that the signal > started on B) on 1st January, 2007, 0:00 GM. > Thus the two signals were sent simultaneously, in the rest frame of the > Earth. This you know, even though the two signals were not received at > the same time. > Ok, I would agree. But it is mainly the same principle. The problem with SRT is, that 'SRT-time' is not based on GMT (Earth time), but two observers had to negotiate about what time it is and how to synchronise clocks. 0:00 GMT is local (Earth) time, since Greenwich is a place on planet Earth. Supposed our remote counterpart lives on a planet, which has also a central observatory on which these - say - Alpha Centaurians base their understanding of time. Only they have a year of 480 days and their day is divided into 60 equal intervals, that are equivalent to 40 minutes here on Earth. The friendly people there are also able to reply our wish for their local time and the guy there replies this question by what he can read from the device he wears abound one of his three wrists. The reply is: now we have ###.###.###:###, where the '#' stand for something, we still could not decipher and what is not in the realm of ASCII. So I can use a place-holder only (#). The communication link is not particularly reliable and has annoying delays (about 7 years). And in many cases we do not know, what these Alpha Centaurians want to express. So we still do not know, how to synchronise clocks. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 15:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5tsj$1rkg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388401 |
On 7/25/2016 3:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > The problem with SRT is, that 'SRT-time' is not based on GMT (Earth > time), but two observers had to negotiate about what time it is and how > to synchronise clocks. This is generally not viewed by physicists as being a problem. Earth time is not a standard, nor should it be, for time. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 08:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvofl5F4i9bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388404 |
Am 25.07.2016 22:47, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 7/25/2016 3:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> The problem with SRT is, that 'SRT-time' is not based on GMT (Earth >> time), but two observers had to negotiate about what time it is and how >> to synchronise clocks. > > This is generally not viewed by physicists as being a problem. > Earth time is not a standard, nor should it be, for time. > Wrong! If we want to discuss 'simultaneity', we should express, what is the positive content of this term. If we have a certain time at a certain date (in GMT), we usually attempt to 'transport' our understanding about this point in time to some other places, without disturbing time too much. If light is not fast enough, to synchronise clocks properly, than which velocity would do? It would require infinite velocity, to synchronise remote clocks to GMT. If this would be done, than remote clocks would tick according to our understanding of time, only teleported to near Alpha Centauri. If there is an inhabited planet and the inhabitants have clocks, the reading of such clocks would not be synchronised to our own teleported clocks, since our clocks there would show GMT, not Alpha Centuarian Mean Time. The scheme that SRT would require is not practically possible at all. According to SRT we had to negotiate with Alpha Centaurians by sending synchronisation signals there, which they had to reply. But what could they possibly do with GMT? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 07:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nna8r4$1vps$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388440 |
On 7/26/2016 1:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.07.2016 22:47, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 7/25/2016 3:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> The problem with SRT is, that 'SRT-time' is not based on GMT (Earth >>> time), but two observers had to negotiate about what time it is and how >>> to synchronise clocks. >> >> This is generally not viewed by physicists as being a problem. >> Earth time is not a standard, nor should it be, for time. >> > > Wrong! No, really. Read the standards definitions. > > If we want to discuss 'simultaneity', we should express, what is the > positive content of this term. > > If we have a certain time at a certain date (in GMT), we usually attempt > to 'transport' our understanding about this point in time to some other > places, without disturbing time too much. I'm sorry, but that's not really the case. It may be what YOU think is proper. But what is true of the time standard is that identical physical processes that are locally at rest near the clock will take identical times. What this is stating is that time is standardized so that the laws of physics remain locally constant, regardless of the inertial reference frame. You will discover that tying to Earth time does not permit this to happen. The reason for this is explained by special and general relativity. It is also the reason that the Earth time standard is not used as a singular reference. This IS the standard that is in effect today, agreed upon by scientists and engineers, whether you like it or not. The rest of your boondoggle below was scanned but not really regarded much. > > If light is not fast enough, to synchronise clocks properly, than which > velocity would do? > > It would require infinite velocity, to synchronise remote clocks to GMT. > > If this would be done, than remote clocks would tick according to our > understanding of time, only teleported to near Alpha Centauri. > > If there is an inhabited planet and the inhabitants have clocks, the > reading of such clocks would not be synchronised to our own teleported > clocks, since our clocks there would show GMT, not Alpha Centuarian Mean > Time. > > The scheme that SRT would require is not practically possible at all. > > According to SRT we had to negotiate with Alpha Centaurians by sending > synchronisation signals there, which they had to reply. > > But what could they possibly do with GMT? > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 43 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web